The intent of this study was to explore, beyond a cursory level, the reasons students leave school early. Through research of the primary pull/push factors that have been identified as repeated themes for many years, the intended outcome was to combine this narrative research with the voices of students who chose to leave school early to learn more about how the pull/push factors affected their decision to drop out. Three research paradigms in education research are quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (Lodico, Spaulding, & Voegtle, 2010). The selected research method was a case study because of its focus on gaining an understanding of how individuals construct their work and how they interpret their experiences and ascribe meaning to them (Merriam, 2009). In this chapter, a review of the research and design rationale will be presented as well as my role as the researcher, the elements that constitute the study’s chosen methodology, the trustworthiness of the study, and ethical considerations.
Research Design and Rationale
The study’s central phenomenon lent itself to qualitative research because the primary goal of this study was to better understand how participants made sense of their experiences (Merriam, 2009). Using this type of research, I have reported and elevated the insights of the participants, required an exploratory study of the setting first-hand, focused on a smaller number of people, and created multiple perspectives (Creswell, 2016). Under the umbrella of qualitative research were a plethora of approaches for
conducting such research (Merriam, 2009). I selected a case study as the research method for this study because I concentrated on a detailed examination of a specific topic and series of events within a controlled organization (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 2009). Through this case study research, I recognized patterns, and developed themes to give meaning to the decision of each participant to drop out of school (Merriam, 2009). In this qualitative design study, the primary instrument of data collection was the researcher (Merriam, 2009). This aspect was important in that opportunity was provided to study the nonverbal behaviors of the participant from a personal perspective. Rich description is a vital aspect that the case study approach encourages (Merriam, 2009). The use of the personal face-to-face interview allowed for the observation of nonverbal communication, and because each interview was audio-taped, excerpts from the
interviews have contribute to the research. Inductive thinking has been at the core of this conceptual framework. Ultimately, my goal in this study has been to understand the points of view of the participants rather than to make a judgment based on objective data (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007). In this manner, the results of the research stand to encourage change in practice and policy that, when enacted, can create richer opportunities and result in more positive outcomes for other students who are contemplating dropping out of school and, in turn, might be encouraged to remain and earn a regular high school credential.
Other Approaches Considered
Other qualitative research methods would not have provided the level of understanding needed for this study. Narrative research highlights the stories about the personal experiences of an individual, and because this study did not focus on one person, such a design choice was ill-fitted (Creswell, 2016). A phenomenological design was also inappropriate because the focus of this study was not on the experience of dropping out of school, in itself, but the pull/push factors that contributed to the choice to leave school early (Merriam, 2009). Another unsuitable method was ethnographic design. The focus on human social activity to the extent that a cultural pattern can be discerned was not the intent of the research (Merriam, 2009). Finally, to use a grounded theory design, I would have had to focus on generating a theory grounded in the data collected from a large number of participants (Merriam, 2009). This research supported neither the large pool of participants necessary nor the generation of a theory about the reasons students left school early. For this study, a small number of students who had dropped out of school were interviewed to gain insight into the pull/push factors that influenced their respective decision to drop out of school.
I did not consider a quantitative design for this study. Quantitative research is primarily concerned with determining a relationship between an independent and a dependent variable, and such a design would focus on numeric data and convergent reasoning (Lodico et al., 2010). This type of design tends to minimize the complexity of the interrelationship between push and pull factors. It is through divergent thinking that
information can be gained outside of what is already known, and that information allows for the highest degree of advancement regarding this research problem. To accomplish the primary purpose of gaining insight from individual students who had made the decision to drop out of school, a quantitative design was not appropriate.
Role of the Researcher
I work for the Iowa Department of Education as a consultant with Iowa Learning Online. I have held this position since July of 2016. Iowa Learning Online is the state of Iowa’s service for districts within the state that cannot offer certain legally required courses at the secondary level. Many districts use Iowa Learning Online to offer courses for which they are unable to secure a teacher, such as upper level science or certain world languages. My role is to provide a meaningful orientation and coaching experience for teachers new to Iowa Learning Online so that the time it takes for new hires to reach acceptable productivity is minimal. In addition, I review alignment of the vendor courses that Iowa Learning Online has purchased to Iowa’s state standards, looking for gaps in content. Finally, I am a part of an instructional design team that creates content to close the gaps to ensure vendor content is aligned with Iowa standards. My current position is removed from any specific contact with school districts. Prior to this position, I was a high school principal and middle school principal for 12 and 3 years, respectively, of small rural schools in eastern Iowa. I began my teaching career, in 1992, in a community in Illinois where I taught high school English.
In the district in which I spent a decade as high school principal the K to 12 population was approximately 700 students. This district’s dropout rate remained consistent at just below 3% in a span of several years. While serving in the high school principal position for this district, I became alarmed with the number of students who chose to leave school early, and I became increasingly aware that the decision to dropout was a gradual process that often started in middle school. This progressive realization about and the understanding of the dropout epidemic led me, as a high school principal, to review the enrollment of my district’s resident and open enrolled populations to better understand my own district’s dropout profile.
More than 90% of my district’s open enrollment came from the district selected as the research site for this study. With a student population of approximately 4,500 students distributed among three high schools, and one alternative program, the research site historically served a large percentage of high at-risk students in the alternative program. This research site’s alternative program was repurposed in 2014 to address the district’s dropout crisis through a more proactive approach. Through the repurposing efforts, a fourth high school was conceived at which each of the students was accepted after a lengthy application and interview process. This process has kept the enrollment in this nontraditional school at fewer than 300 students in any given school year. The research site’s efforts to implement practices to address their dropout crisis coupled with a tight desegregation policy, resulted in student enrollment into my district’s high school to
decline. Ironically, the dropout rate of my district’s high school did not decline in tandem.
My role as a researcher, throughout the entire research study, was to balance my professional responsibilities with my biases. My role was not to make judgments about people or programs but to collect data, study that data, and better understand the reasons students leave school early. In addition, as a researcher, I have an academic responsibility to promote inquiry within my professional field. To provide information that may benefit the overall good of education is a service responsibility that is at the center of my selected profession. Research that contributes to my academic field may result in social change that is purposeful and transformational.
In the selection of this district as the basis of my research, I did so on the history and current practices of the district. I have no personal relationship with the district nor will I with the participants selected for the study. My professional relationship with the district has been in the capacity of my role as a former principal of a district that received students from the research site on an open enrollment basis. This lack of personal
investment in the district and/or the participants has encouraged a higher level of integrity for both the study and my role as the researcher, thereby reducing any potential bias or imbalance of power during the research process.
Methodology Participant Selection
To gain access to the participants, I first communicated with the intended research district’s graduation support and at-risk specialist and superintendent. Representatives of this research site verbally confirmed their support of this study in exchange for access to the results of the research to continue to improve services to their students. The results that I provided to the research site’s district staff did not reveal any participant names or confidential information. Representatives at the research further agreed to allow research to be conducted based on individuals who were classified as dropouts. I obtained written consent from the district’s superintendent to conduct this study.
Participants for the study were recruited, upon approval of the Walden University IRB process (Approval No. 001-612-312-1210), through a purposeful sampling
technique. A purposeful sampling technique is the deliberate selection of participants because of the insightful information they can provide to this study (Martella, Nelson, Morgan, & Marchand-Martella, 2013; Robinson, 2014). A representative from the research site agreed to send out informational/consent letters regarding the research study, on my behalf and at my expense, to a pool of candidates who had dropped out of school from the designated research site and were between the ages of 18 to 21. The first 15 respondents were to be selected for the study. This designated age range equated to a shorter time separation from school and encouraged the collection of more reliable interview data as the passage of time can influence recollection of facts and
circumstances. According to Robinson (2014), interviews that have an idiographic aim seek a smaller sample size to capture the essence of their circumstances. A final sample of participants was to be narrowed to a group of 10-15 for this research study. This number allowed for information-rich cases (Merriam, 2009; Robinson, 2014). The final number of 10 participants will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, also,
accommodated for a reasonable amount of time to gather personal information about the participant, plan and conduct the face-to-face, individual, personal interview, and code and analyze the data thoroughly and accurately.
The possibility of participant withdrawal from the study was present at all stages of the study and was considered at each stage of the interview process (Hadidi, Lindquist, Treat-Jacobson, & Swanson, 2013). Since it was highly plausible that participant
withdrawal would be linked to any number of personal reasons, it was important that each participant understood the value his or her insight would bring to the study (Hadidi et al., 2013). To lessen the likelihood that a participant would desire to withdraw from this study, I distributed a gift card for $10.00 to each participant who participated in the interview. As per Hadidi et al. (2013), if a participant chose to withdraw from the study, efforts would have been committed to gain insight into the reasons for the withdrawal with the intention of using such information to alter practices in this or future studies. No participant chose to withdraw from the study; no need for a complete destruction of their data occurred. At no time was there a need to attempt to deter participants from dropping
out of the study, so no preventative measures that supported the retention of participants were implemented.
Instrumentation
Because this study was qualitative, the data collected were based on individual interviews conducted with participants who had formally dropped out of the research site and were not enrolled in any other district at the time of this research. The primary instrument used to collect student data was a personal interview. The interview protocol consisted of demographic questions and open-ended questions specifically related to the research topic (see Appendix). The demographic questions (Questions 1-6) were used to collect basic demographic data. The purpose of these questions was to ascertain specifics regarding common characteristics of the participant population. The questions referenced information such as: age, ethnic origin, highest level of high school completed, marital status, employment status, and household income (Fink, 2013). Three foundational concepts were the common denominator in the open-ended interview questions: questions ascertained what led each participant to drop out of school, a focus on the decision-
making process the participant experienced while trying to make the decision to drop out of school and what, if anything, the school could have done to persuade the participant not to drop out /leave. The purpose of the three foundational premises was to act as a guide as the interview progressed and to help ascertain possible themes during the data analysis.
The delineated interview questions were designed to collect data that were likely to reveal insight into the factors that led the student to drop out of school. These
questions (Questions 7-18) were borrowed from Colbert (2017). Although I sought and received permission to use the questions, because the questions were available though open access permission was not needed. Colbert’s study was a phenomenological study on the perspectives of African American males. Colbert focused on the males’
educational experiences during high school and the effects of those experiences on their decisions to drop out of school. The questions were appropriate as the impetus in both this research study and Colbert’s research study was the development of a deeper understanding of how life experiences influenced a participant’s decision-making. The interview questions were adjusted, minimally, with permission, and for reasons
appropriate for this study.
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection The intended method of selection was guided by the research site’s
representative’s efforts to identify students who met the initial qualifier for the study: the participant had to be classified as a current dropout. From that point, participants were selected based on the age range specification of 18 to 21. This range limited the amount of time participants had been disconnected from school to between two and five years to, ideally, encourage the greatest possibility of accurate recall of the events that led to their decision to drop out. The representatives from the research site agreed to send letters regarding the study to all students who had dropped out and were within the specified age
range. This letter of introduction informed the participant of the purpose of the study and included my contact information. I had planned to accept the first 15 respondents for the study and secure a signed consent at the time of the interview. If I did not hear from any or enough participants, the research site agreed to help me with a second attempt to secure participants 2 weeks after the initial letter was sent. To encourage as much
participation as well as the highest level of comfort possible, the participant was allowed to select the location for the interview. There was a room designated at the central office of the district at the heart of this study, but this room was only to serve in such a capacity if requested by a participant. Interviews were scheduled to the extent possible to fully accommodate the participant.
Once the participants were selected and interviews were scheduled, the process of data collection began. It was intended that data were to be collected one time per
participant, at the actual interview meeting. Each interview was intended to last
approximately 60 minutes. I asked the questions in numerical order and prepared myself to be consistent across all interviews regarding the way in which each question was asked so as to not encourage or discourage any type of response. Each participant was given the questions at the start of the interview for reference. Interviews were recorded via audio and I took minimal handwritten notes. No participant needed to stop the interview before its completion, so no interview needed to be rescheduled and/or continued. In addition, no participant withdrew from the research process.
Following the complete interview, I uploaded the interview recording to an external transcription site, Rev.com, and within 48 hours of the completion of the interview, each transcript was available for participant review. The turn-around time for this review was reasonable and encouraged accurate reflection of the interview by the participant. Each participant had 2 weeks to complete a review of and member check the transcript. Transcripts were made available to each participant in a number of formats, including hard copy, electronic copy, and as an audio file. Use of these different formats helped minimize any member checking traps (Carlson, 2010). Additional precautions were implemented to encourage each participant to review the transcript in the manner most likely to ascertain their true voice and included the opportunity for the participant to meet with me to read the transcript in completion (Carlson, 2010). Communication occurred via the most conducive venue for the participant at all times during the research study. This open and convenient communication with participants allowed me to fill in any gaps within the actual process of data collection or with the data itself (Baxter & Jack, 2008; Carlson, 2010). Each participant was given a gift card at the start of the interview so to alleviate any sense of coercion that may have been experienced by the participant. No follow up interviews or contact were planned for this study. Furthermore, in a written summation once I completed data analysis, I shared a sample of my initial